- The Orissa HC has, in the case of Surendra Kumar Sahoo vs State of Odisha, held that the Tata Power Company Limited (TPCL), though not a State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, is nevertheless an authority within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution and is thus subject to the writ jurisdiction of the HC.
- In the instant case, the supply, maintenance and distribution was undertaken by the Orissa State electricity board, which was created under a statute and completely under the control of the State. Later, to restructure the electrical industry, the State Government, in consultation with the Grid Corporation of Orissa and in exercise of the power conferred by the Orissa Electricity Reforms Act, made the transfer scheme rules.
- In accordance with this, the entire State of Odisha was divided into four distribution zones for the supply of electricity. Four distribution companies were involved in the same, namely WESCO, NESCO, CESCO and SOUTHCO. These distribution companies were responsible for collecting electricity duties along with energy charges collected from the customers.
- A number of PILs were filed against these companies, and the current petition was filed challenging the maintainability of the PILs.
- It was observed by the Court that TPCL, though a company, was engaged in the distribution of electricity in the four distribution areas of the State under different names and its management was also controlled by the State through GRIDCO (Grid Corporation of Orissa).
- The Court also observed that though the word State has not been defined, it includes all authorities within the territory of India or under the control of the Government of India. The word ‘or’ must be read disjunctively and not conjunctively, meaning thereby that the company must not necessarily be under the control of the Government of India.
- The Court had also observed that the notion that all PSUs must be financed by the government or must be under its deep, pervasive control has undergone a massive change in the past decades. The focus now is on the functions that these companies perform. The main question that needs answering is whether the function that is exercised by the company is ‘public function’.
- The Court referred to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of K.K.Saksena vs international Commission on Irrigation and Drainage (2015)4 SCC where it was held that the word authority used in Article 226 has to be given a more liberal interpretation than the word state used in Article 12. It was further held that even if a person or authority does not come within the sweep of Article 12 but discharged public functions, the same would come within the term ‘authority’ under Article 226 and appropriate writs can be issued against the same.
- Thus, the HC held that the TPCL falls within the term ‘authority’ within the meaning of article 226 and that the writ petitions are maintainable against these aforementioned distribution companies.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
